RAM NATH Vs. SALOCHNA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the present suit claiming that the sale deed dated 24.04.2001, registered in the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Barwala, which was got executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 1 Kanal situated in Village Palasara, Tehsil and District Panchkula, is illegal, null, void and is the result of fraud, mis-representation and not binding upon the plaintiff and was liable to be set-aside. Relief for possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the said land was also sought by the plaintiff. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 20/82 share in land bearing Khasra No. 6//20/2/2 (2-2), 20/3/2/2 (2-0), Kitta-2, measuring 1 Kanal situated in Village Palasara, Tehsil and District Panchkula. Plaintiff had raised construction of 1200 square feet area over the land which consisted of four rooms, two kitchens, verandah etc. and also installed a hand pump in the year 1987. The said area was known as HMT Colony and one room was let out to Smt. Beena Kumari and Shri Jaswant Singh husband of Veena Kumari in the year 1985 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. However, Beena Kumari filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed a regular suit for possession against Beena Kumari and Jaswant Singh and a contempt petition was also filed by the Beena Kumari and Jaswant Singh against him. It is pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner was suffering from psychotropic disease and defendant No. 3 in connivance with Beena Kumari and Jaswant Singh got a sale deed dated 24.04.2001 executed from the plaintiff in respect of one Kanal of land owned by him in Village Palasara in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2.

(3.) Accordingly, it is said that the sale deed was not voluntarily executed by the plaintiff nor any sale consideration was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and factum of the construction on the land in the sale deed dated 24.4.2001 was not mentioned and the sale deed in question was not signed by Smt. Santosh Rani, defendant No. 2. and her photograph was affixed subsequently in connivance with the official of the Office of Sub-Registrar. It shows that with the connivance of the defendants they have taken possession from Beena Kumari and Jaswant Singh and got the suit for possession dismissed as withdrawn and let out the same to the police department on monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only) and since the plaintiff was suffering from psychotropic disease, he was not interested to implead the police department as a party and he sought the relief of possession.